JUDGMENT

Prinsep, J. - The Magistrate had before him a complaint of defamation as well as of dishonestly using a forged document u/s 471, Indian. Penal Code. The alleged forgery consisted in affixing a false signature to a letter on -which the charge of defamation proceeded. At the trial, the evidence was, no doubt, principally directed to the charge u/s 471, and it appears that, at the close of the trial, the Magistrate suddenly turned round and convicted the accused of defamation, having no charge before him of that offence. On appeal, the Sessions Judge very properly found fault with such a proceeding. He seems, however, to have followed the Magistrate into an error regarding the evidence necessary to prove the offence of defamation, for he points out that there is no evidence to show that the complainant has been injuriously affected by such alleged defamation. That, however, is not necessary to constitute an offence of defamation as defined in Section 499, Indian Penal Code. The law requires merely that there should be an intent that the person who makes or publishes any imputation should do so intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will